O’Keefe exerted schedule pressure on the STS-107 launch that possibly prevented a more detailed evaluation of the earlier foam shedding incident.

As for O’Keefe missing opportunities, one big one is his refusal to immediately squelch the one trillion dollar cost estimate for the new space plan. His own agency produced a much lower estimate, but O’Keefe did little to publicize it.

We should also keep in mind that the current Hubble robot mission is at best a desperation move; and at worst it is a crass ploy to silence the critics by sending an expensive, risky mission to Congress and asking them to fund it. The position taken by O’Keefe seems to be that the only mistake in the Hubble decision was the timing–and that they blame on a leak from the White House. One wonders how they thought they could keep this decision under wraps. And one also wonders how come they so seriously misunderestimated the public reaction. O’Keefe was at NASA for over two years and yet he did not realize that Hubble is perhaps the most popular thing that NASA does?

The money spent on Return to Flight is not wasted. A new vehicle will take years to develop and we must continue construction of the Space Station or we will loose all respect from our partners. In diplomacy this has been a shinning star and example how something like star fleet could happen someday. So much has happen since Columbia, much larger changes than after Challenger and a real idea of what America should be doing in space but I worry the gestalt of Congress will not see a true vision. The opportunities are ahead and our voices must continue to shout. By design our government moves slowly so people must be diligent.

Both ESA and Japan are building transfer vehicles and a progress vehicle is docking on Saturday. The Russia economy is near or below depression standards and yet the government has continued the relationship with NASA. I’m sure if Congress knew the position now, they would have modified the Act to allow NASA to purchase hardware. NASA can’t build any vehicle without consent of Congress. The concept of creating space systems is to give NASA more flexibility in building vehicles. Hopefully they will build a modular design that is multifunctional and from the concept videos, it appears to be there direction.

It’s not a true “Robot”, it’s more of a remote control extension. The technology is similar to the Canadian “Hand” for the space station which attaches to the space station robotic arm. This is not an autonomous repair robot, it will be control similar to the robotic arm on the shuttle and station with some intelligence like the Mars Exploration Rovers. NASA has many years experience with this technology and experiments in even more autonomous robots. This concept could be used to service James Webb in the future, since it will be at L2.

I would like to see O’Keefe get more private sector and entrepreneurial companies involved in all aspects of NASA but I know this will take time.

Yet you’ve not specifically named and/or detailed even ONE.

Posted by John Malkin at August 11, 2004 11:04 AM

Hello John.

Let me tackle both of your questions.

First the station is only a temporarly, very temporary safe haven. Yes the crew of the orbiter could stay there, but very quickly everone would be on bread and water (or maybe just water).

The shuttle’s fuel cells could be tapped for lots of water as power wained. And the food supplies could really be stretched if everyone went into chimp mode and energy on the shuttle conserved…etc etc.

But before long the shuttle would run out of power for the fuel cells and die. Then there would be loads of problems on the station (control might be one) and there would be the issues of supplies.

Yeah a “rescue” could be launched but what happens if a hole appears in that vehicle?

The stations resupply is not working all tha well with two on it.

Okeefe has missed a zillion oppurtunities. I’ll pass on his part in losing the shuttle…and go to the recovery stage. We will have spent a lot of money and two years on shuttle recovery that should have been spent on alt access.

His Hubble recovery plan is well impossble. We have never done an automated rendezvous much less an automated service. Do you really think that has a chance of coming in on time and on budget?

Robert G. Oler

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/aba08114.xml

“After encountering “significant technical challenges,” NASA is abandoning attempts to develop a rigid overwrap to patch large holes in the space shuttle’s reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) panels in the event of damage during flight, and instead is pursuing other methods that probably won’t be ready in time for the shuttle’s return to flight, according to agency officials.”